Some Northside Residents Don't Want Low Income Apartments Either

that they says it's low income housing yet expect people to make at least 3 times what their rent is. especially since it can go up to $875 for rent. that doesn't seem very low income and I also find it funny that when the people on the south side objected they were called racist yet the people on the north side object and no one says anything

Great article Amanda! Keep up the good work!

Where's the outrage now? People on the Northside don't want it either. Now that it's in your neighborhood is not such agood idea anymore is it. according to the requirements is doesn't seem like it will be too easy for low income families to get a apartment. So what's going to happen in grandma or grandpa, mom or dad with good record and some credit are going to get the lease in their name and let their kids move in to the apartment that qualify for it if they applied theirselves. Is management going to actually go around and check the occupants? I doubt that.

If you keep giving handouts to lower income, (wic, gas for transportation, medicade, lonestar, c.h.i.p.s., daycare, cellphone w/free minutes and text, hud, lower monthly payments on housing),they are going to keep taking. When is it going to stop. I need my tax money to support my family not someone else's.

There are sooooo many issues here, overlapping issues, contradictory issues, REAL issues.
What makes the occupant of "affordable housing" undesirable in a neighborhood and can we do something about THAT? We ALL need housing we can afford, so the word "affordable" must be polite-speak for subsidized. There is resentment when money is coming out of our pockets to subsidize anyone for ANYthing. There is a feeling that doing a favor for any group that accepts help for housing costs is only going to bite us somewhere (no good deed goes unpunished). There is a feeling that once you latch onto the government teat there is no letting go, a sign of weakness. Maybe we want some better criteria established for "need". How many times every week does your diet stray from beans, rice, peanut butter, and jelly? Government aid that stepped in at a time of economic disaster, think Great Depression, was meant to prevent you having to clear away bodies to get your car out of the driveway, not provide a standard of living to which anyone would aspire. We want to know that we aren't living poorly and paying for someone to have better surroundings than our own. So what else is going on here? There are strict requirements for anyone who wants to live in this affordable housing and what looks like a huge contradiction. On the one hand, an occupant must be earning 3 times their rent. Well, that's great. Statistics show that if you are earning less than 3 times your rent you are more likely to be party to an eviction and frequent evictions in a complex is a social and economic disaster for the entire community. And yet, if the rent is on a sliding scale, wouldn't that rent have been established to meet the criteria? Something wrong with this contradiction. Is the "affordable" designation actually about getting a tax break for the management company? Those listed criteria are as rigid as any for luxury apartments, therefore rendering ineligible most anyone who might apply. You are either building housing for folks who would otherwise be unable to find it or you are taking advantage of some sort of government deal and making sure no one but the cream can qualify. If you are able to establish that list of criteria, would it not be a positive action to also mandate a few hours of tenant classes, offered several times weekly FOREVER, required for prospective tenants, maybe twice a year to continue to address situations that come up. We in Rural America may be more conscious of the strains connected with proximity of other humans. Not everyone has the choice of space, so we can continue to listen to increasing accounts of domestic disturbances evry morning or we can do some educating and maybe cool things down before they catch fire. How do you turn neighborhood objections around? Educate and civilize the tenants. I come from a town where a large influx of political refugees was dumped, a little too large for seamless assimilation. No one thought to educate them, it was the East Coast, where everyone is on the Government Gimmee, they just handed out rent vouchers. These folks came from places with no flush toilets. After the toilets were full, the apartments declined somewhat in desirability. An extreme reality to make a point. Providing daycare is a preemptive strike against unemployment and neglect, but the basic instruction about living in close contact with others is just not happening. Ah, but that's not your tenant is it? It's young families who are fully employed and getting their start, right? Soooo the neighborhood is concerned about gangs and idle kids and the landlords are citing all the criteria for occupancy as reasons for the neighborhood to feel comfortable, as though Mom and Dad out working is going to prevent the kids from getting into trouble. What reality do THEY live in? Of course if credit checks and background checks and employment criteria are adhered to, well, none of these other issues will ever be a problem because the units will sit empty.